Open Tracked MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

open_tracked_tracking_score

Retrieve a container's tracking score (0–100) and the checks behind it—server status, subdomain, CDN, Custom Loader, Cookie Keeper, and event delivery—to diagnose tracking health.

Instructions

The container's tracking score (0 to 100) and the checks behind it: server running, own subdomain, CDN, Custom Loader, Cookie Keeper, events arriving.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "containerId": "<containerId>"
    },
    "name": "open_tracked_tracking_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`containerId`	Yes	The Open Tracked container id (the number in its address).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It enumerates the checks returned, which adds some value, but omits whether this is a read-only operation, whether checks are evaluated live or cached, and any auth or rate-limit considerations for a presumably safe getter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence front-loads the score range and then lists the checks. No filler or repetition; every element earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the return shape. It does list the checks and score range, but it does not clarify whether checks are pass/fail booleans, strings, or structured fields, leaving some ambiguity for an agent interpreting the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The Open Tracked container id'), and the description adds no further meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource and what is returned: the container's tracking score plus the underlying checks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like open_tracked_containers or open_tracked_domains by focusing on scoring, though it lacks an explicit action verb ('get', 'retrieve').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose implies usage, but the description offers no contextual routing whatsoever.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server